Appeal No. 2002-2087
Application No. 09/733,836
Claims 9-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, “as containing subject matter which was not described in
the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art
to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to
make and/or use the invention.” Answer, page 3.
Claims 9-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite (Answer, page 4). Claims 9-16 also
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lin in
view of Williams (Answer, page 5).1
We reverse all of the examiner’s rejections on appeal
essentially for the reasons stated in the Brief and Reply Brief,
and those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
A. The Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶1 and ¶2
The examiner finds that claims 9 and 13 recite source and
drain contact structures extending through the shallow trench
isolation (STI)(Answer, sentence bridging pages 3-4). The examiner
states that it is “well known” in the art that STI is “defined” as
a shallow trench formed inside and below the substrate to isolate
1The final rejection of claims 9-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Williams alone or in view of Lin has been withdrawn by the
examiner (Answer, page 2; Reply Brief, page 7).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007